NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE Vs. S S DADWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint instituted by Dr. S. S. Dadwal and his wife, the District Forum-I held on 22.10.1998 that only 10% out of 25% of the bid money which comes to Rs.11,250/- could be forfeited and not 25% of the total cost of the site. Aggrieved against it, the Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra has attempted the present appeal.

(2.) There was a sale of Shop-cum-Flats in Mani Majra on 27.3.1988. As a consequence of acceptance of the bid, Shop-cum-Flat No.41 was allotted to Dr. S. S. Dadwal and his wife. However, on account of lack of funds the allottees surrendered the aforesaid premises. The plea of the appellant is that they were competent to forfeit 10% of the total price which comes to Rs.45,000/- because the total price was Rs.4,50,000/-. It shall be useful to reproduce Clause 10 of the allotment letter dated 27.3.1988 Annexure C-1, as under : "10. If at any stage the transferee (s) due to certain compelling circumstances, would like to surrender the site, he/she/they shall be allowed to do so with prior permission from the President of the Committee and the surrender would be subject to forfeiture of 10% of the amount out of 25% of the cost paid at the fall of the hammer. The interest amount recovered upto the date of surrender shall not in any case be refunded. "

(3.) We concur with the District Forum-I that in this case forfeiture could be only upto 10% out of the 25% of the sum deposited at fall of the hammer. The auction was held on 27.3.1988 and a subsequent resolution or so called amendment was made by the Notified Area Committee held on 27.8.1991 that surrender would be subject to forfeiture of 10% of the total bid money cannot be held to be binding. The appellants may attempt to take the benefit of this resolution in respect of auction held on or after 27.8.1991 but not in respect of auctions held earlier as in this case. The conclusion is that the appeal of Notified Area Committee, Mani Majra, UT and two others is hereby dismissed and the decision of the District Forum-I is hereby affirmed. The respondents are also entitled to costs of this appeal Rs.1,000/-.